Through a peaceful political process they hope to assume leadership in the state's legislature and executive offices and reduce burdensome taxation and regulation, reform state and local law, end federal mandates that violate the Ninth and Tenth Amendments . . .

Couldn't help but think that this is what has taken place in the "solid South" since '68. It's gone from all blue to all red? Of course none of that was due to "imports" but rather good 'ol boys in pick-ups with Rebel flags on the window. ;^)

13
posted on 12/21/2004 9:50:12 AM PST
by w_over_w
(Where do forest rangers go to "get away from it all?")

Excellent article my friend! Its too bad so many damnYankees didn't recognize that intent of the Founders. I see Non-Sequential is up to his old buffonish charges. Please explain to me how a US Fortification on Southern soil in 1861, with no treaty recognizing it by the Confederate Government AS AN AUTHORIZED FOREIGN MILITARY FORTIFICATION was legally exempted from being fired upon?

But then Lincoln would use any port in a storm to promote war. And the Yankees had the temerity to call us ignorant!

Please explain to me how a US Fortification on Southern soil in 1861, with no treaty recognizing it by the Confederate Government AS AN AUTHORIZED FOREIGN MILITARY FORTIFICATION was legally exempted from being fired upon?

I guess it isn't, if you are out to start a war. Which is what the Davis regime did.

No, it was Lincoln's attempts to re-supply and reinforce the fort which were the cause of it. Being fired upon was only the effect. But then the Yankees always played by two sets of rules. One for themselves, and a completely different set for everyone else. Now days we call this type the liberal left.

No, it was Lincoln's attempts to re-supply and reinforce the fort which were the cause of it.

The confederate forces had been firing at anything flying the U.S. flag long before Lincoln's resupply effort. On at least two prior occasions they had tried to initiate hosilities by firing on unarmed ships. In the end, they came to the conclusion that the only way to get their war was to bombard the fort itself.

If you read the writings of the anti-federalists, most of their complaints and predictions about the Constitution and how it threatened state sovereignty have come to fruition.

Notice that author Williams is at George Mason University. Mason was one of the greatest of the Antifederalists, as were Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry. Also, for a long time, John Hancock of Massachusetts, although the Federalists finally won him over (having made winning him over a major project).

The confederate forces had been firing at anything flying the U.S. flag long before Lincoln's resupply effort.

Overcharacterization for polemical effect -- how well you do it.

The Southerners were concerned only with the possibility -- the probability (about which they guessed aright) that Lincoln had been lying to them and would attempt to reinforce the garrison with more troops. He did.

In the end, they came to the conclusion that the only way to get their war was to bombard the fort itself.

Oh, I'm sorry, but "getting their war" was Lincoln's purpose -- and will you insist I quote Lincoln's personal secretary, John Nicolay, to you to prove it?

Starting a war was Lincoln's idea. I think he wanted a war all along --ever since 1856, when he finally concluded that there was no constitutional way to abolish slavery. (So, he decided on an unconstitutional one -- a civil war.)

To keep the equities of the American Civil War straight, it's only necessary to remember a) there was no rebellion, b) there was no insurrection, c) the People, not their servant officeholders, are Sovereign and answer only to the ineffable Who Am, and d) who invaded whom.

Everything else is excuses and eyewash -- excuses for killing 620,000 men in the field, and almost a million people overall, over politics.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. " Art4 Sec4 U.S. Constitution

The Southerners were concerned only with the possibility -- the probability (about which they guessed aright) that Lincoln had been lying to them and would attempt to reinforce the garrison with more troops. He did.

It didn't have to happen. Lincoln's intentions to reinforce only if the resupply effort was opposed was made cleart to Governor Pickens and Major Anderson.

Starting a war was Lincoln's idea. I think he wanted a war all along --ever since 1856, when he finally concluded that there was no constitutional way to abolish slavery. (So, he decided on an unconstitutional one -- a civil war.)

Overcharacterization for polemical effect -- you do it well yourself. Ending slavery was never an overriding goal of the Union. Preserving it was an overriding goal of the confederacy.

To keep the equities of the American Civil War straight, it's only necessary to remember a) there was no rebellion, b) there was no insurrection, c) the People, not their servant officeholders, are Sovereign and answer only to the ineffable Who Am, and d) who invaded whom.

The southron myth machine at work yet again. Yes, there was a rebellion. Yes there was an insurrection. Whatever the hell 'c' means. You don't invade your own country so nobody invaded anyone.

Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite.

The former (powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, few and defined) will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected.

37
posted on 12/23/2004 3:19:53 AM PST
by ApesForEvolution
(You will NEVER convince me that Muhammadanism isn't a death cult that must end. Save your time...)

The former (powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, few and defined) will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected.

I'm afraid that WW is focusing too much on one aspect without regard to the fact that the nation changes with time. That even Madison and the Anti-federalists recognised one unescapable fact about the Constitution as opposed to the federation of state under the Articles of Confederation.

For there is more to the national government than the administration of "external objects".

"The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present [Continental] sic Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future [Constitutional]Congress will have to require them of individual citizens;

"The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities.On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"

There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution.

For by no means was the national government expected to restrict itself to "EXTERNAL" sources of revenue:

"The more intelligent adversaries of the new Constitution ...qualify ... by a distinction between what they call INTERNAL and EXTERNAL taxation. The former they would reserve to the State governments; the latter, which they explain into commercial imposts, or rather duties on imported articles, they declare themselves willing to concede to the federal head. This distinction, however, would violate the maxim of good sense and sound policy, which dictates that every POWER ought to be in proportion to its OBJECT; and would still leave the general government in a kind of tutelage to the State governments, inconsistent with every idea of vigor or efficiency. Who can pretend that commercial imposts are, or would be, alone equal to the present and future exigencies of the Union? Taking into the account the existing debt, foreign and domestic, upon any plan of extinguishment which a man moderately impressed with the importance of public justice and public credit could approve, in addition to the establishments which all parties will acknowledge to be necessary, we could not reasonably flatter ourselves, that this resource alone, upon the most improved scale, would even suffice for its present necessities.

"The maxim that the consumer is the payer, is so much oftener true than the reverse of the proposition, that it is far more equitable that the duties on imports should go into a common stock, than that they should redound to the exclusive benefit of the importing States. But it is not so generally true as to render it equitable, that those duties should form the only national fund.When they are paid by the merchant they operate as an additional tax upon the importing State, whose citizens pay their proportion of them in the character of consumers. In this view they are productive of inequality among the States; which inequality would be increased with the increased extent of the duties. The confinement of the national revenues to this species of imposts would be attended with inequality, from a different cause, between the manufacturing and the non-manufacturing States."

To form a more precise judgment of the true merits of this question, it will be well to advert to the proportion between the objects that will require a federal provision in respect to revenue, and those which will require a State provision. We shall discover that the former are altogether unlimited, and that the latter are circumscribed within very moderate bounds. In pursuing this inquiry, we must bear in mind that we are not to confine our view to the present period, but to look forward to remote futurity. Constitutions of civil government are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages, according to the natural and tried course of human affairs. Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities. There ought to be a CAPACITY to provide for future contingencies as they may happen; and as these are illimitable in their nature, it is impossible safely to limit that capacity.

``A CONCURRENT JURISDICTION in the article of taxation was the only admissible substitute for an entire subordination, in respect to this branch of power, of State authority to that of the Union.'' Any separation of the objects of revenue that could have been fallen upon, would have amounted to a sacrifice of the great INTERESTS of the Union to the POWER of the individual States. The convention thought the concurrent jurisdiction preferable to that subordination; and it is evident that it has at least the merit of reconciling an indefinite constitutional power of taxation in the Federal government with an adequate and independent power in the States to provide for their own necessities.

The blame lies with the Northern Yankees for interfering in Southern States' internal affairs. I haven't ever heard of the Southern States trying to tell the Northern States how to run their internal affairs. But the reverse wasn't true, the Yankees were always meddling in Southern Affairs. So when the Southern States asserted their soveriegn rights as guaranteed under the 9th and 10th Amendments, all of a sudden its "Why you can't do that." So then the Southern States defend themselves, and they are labeled the culprits. No sir Mr. Non-Sequential, the North and you have no high ground. So much for the Bill of Rights, and the American Ideology. Lincoln would've made Joseph Dugashvili proud.

First through shifting of taxes owed from the War For Independence. Secondly through abolitionists attempts to incite slave insurrections. Thirdly through Northern merchants putting all of their money behind getting certain trade laws inimicable to Southern economic interests passed through Congress. Lastly through illegal invasion of the Southern States by military force.

New Hampshire was a poor choice for the FreeState project because it is in the midst of the socialist states of New England. Indeeed, New Hampshire voted for Kerry. It is lost, do not look back nor waste any time on it. Pick a state in the Red Zone.

How did the Northern States get tax burdens from the War for Independence shifted? They went to Congress and whined about how paying those taxes would bankrupt the Northern States. So the Congress went and shifted a lot of the tax burden on the South "to help out" the Northern States. This occured in the late 1700's or early 1800's. Then Congress later enacted a "protective tariff" which enriched the North at the expense of other sections vis a vis the South.

As for your other viewpoint about the South starting the war, I offer this as proof of Lincoln's perfidity and badgering of the South into war.

"It was his Secretary of the Navy, Gideon Wells, who wrote: " It was very inmportant that the Rebels strike the first blow in the conflict."

Lincoln assembled the squadron of warships and tugs, as recommended by Captain G.V. Fox. He placed Fox in command and sent the fleet to Charleston.

The reinforcement had been outlined by Fox: "I simply propose three tugs convoyed by light-draft men of war ... The first tug to lead in empty, to open their fire"

Before Fox could carry out the plan, the Southerners bombarded and captured the fort.

Did the failure of the expedition distress Lincoln? Not at all. On May 1, 1861, he wrote Fox: " I sincerely regret that the failure of the attempt to provision Fort Sumter should be a source of annoyance to you ...You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."

So if you were to have asked a Confederate Soldier why they seceeded, he would have told you these reasons:

1. Our States entered the Union with the understanding that they had the right to withdraw when membership proved unhappy.

2. We were tired of being gypped by unfair tariff laws.

3> we were fed up with insane abuse from South-hating fanatics.

4. We bought our slaves from the North, only to learn later that it proposed to free them without a penny of compensation.

How did the Northern States get tax burdens from the War for Independence shifted? They went to Congress and whined about how paying those taxes would bankrupt the Northern States. So the Congress went and shifted a lot of the tax burden on the South "to help out" the Northern States. This occured in the late 1700's or early 1800's. Then Congress later enacted a "protective tariff" which enriched the North at the expense of other sections vis a vis the South.

Specifically?

As for your other viewpoint about the South starting the war, I offer this as proof of Lincoln's perfidity and badgering of the South into war.

So the gist of your arguement is that there was a war because the southern leadership was too stupid to see through Lincoln's plot? Doesn't say much about them, does it?

So if you were to have asked a Confederate Soldier why they seceeded, he would have told you these reasons...

If you asked the southern leadership why they sent those soldiers into war they would have told you this:

"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."

Sorry but your tired assed old arguments won't wash here. I know who the real culprits were - and they weren't from the Southern States!

"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."

Says you. Same old yadda-yadda! Nothing new to see here folks, time to move along.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.